Young Justice Wiki:Site discussions/Bloodlines for Questions
}} __NOWYSIWYG__ Right, this is ridiculous, Still. The issue is something subjective per person, we WILL NEVER (until/unless it is ever touched upon again, where one side sees no reason for this at all.) definitively discuss the logic behind the question with all parties in agreeance. Instead, we should try resolving with Wikia policy. And, since this is a squabble between admins and high content editors, I'd rather if an Admin without a vocalised side on the matter or Consensus (in which case, larger community, not only high profile editors will be asked to contribute) rules it before any decision is made and reflected on the articles. Also, this should apply to all instances with the issue in question, not only on Endgame. Let's not have another revert war on our hands. Guidelines: *Questions posed on a particular episode/comic issue must derive from their respective plot. *Questions must open-ended and neutral. *Questions should not focus on internal logic. *Questions should be specific and non-generic. *There's no need to ask something that can be inferred. All these, Not Met. The question has no place in the main space. Regulus22 04:45, April 5, 2013 (UTC) My two cents I have defended Cari's point of view in the past in discussion threads. Which is why I did not intervene in the little edit tete-a-tete between her and Thailog. Like her, I believe that the Happy Harbor was still decimated at the end of Bloodlines. Obviously, I am not a disinterested party, and so I'm not the impartial admin you're looking for. However, I would just like to say that since the scene is open to interpretation (was Happy Harbor really destroyed?), I will go with the majority consensus. 'ᴥ' Zergrinch 09:39, April 5, 2013 (UTC) :Mhmm. I've agreed with Thailog so aint gonna do it either. But, at four reverts on an issue that's been argued to death for months without resolution, it needs to be stopped. Tupka and Rass haven't made a side, they make a call once any case that can be made is made as final verdict taking arguments into account, I think it's the fairest Imperial Method. Otherwise rely on the folly of democracy where even the people, who think that Legacy isn't canon despite clear as day Word of God, get a say. :Anyone can put their thoughts on the matter, I only specified Thailog and Cari for a cessation of the edit warring, it's a massively inneffectual way of settling disputes. I've presented my point, Policies that have been in place for quite some time. That's gonna be difficult to refute. [[User talk:Regulus22|'Regulus'22]] 09:57, April 5, 2013 (UTC) ::Actually, Tukpa has made a side. In "Bloodlines", Neutron sees Mount Justice devastated, which happened a few episodes later in "Darkest". That answers the question! Now Cari made "changes" to the question to accommodate conjecture and suit her partial view: "maybe Neutron saw more destruction". Either one is a leading question which goes against our policy. As such, I don't see the need for this. We don't need to garner consensus every time a piece of content is contested. That's what policies are for and both versions of this question contravenes point #1, #2 and #5 of the policy you cited. ― Thailog 11:45, April 5, 2013 (UTC) :::Well, then what about this question ("What is the Light planning to do with Darkseid?")? How is this specific and non-generic? How does this not rely on internal logic, if it relies on the logic that the Light is planning something with Darkseid, which has been contested by some users? How can the answer not be inferred when there have been multiple plot points throughout the series that the audience can infer it from? If you can't answer all of these questions and still want to take out the "Bloodlines" question, then you might as well take out the "Darkseid" question too. Are you really willing to do that? Cari1994 (talk) 23:50, April 5, 2013 (UTC) ::::Hmm, it's very specific, actually. It's asking what their plan is. Look up the definition of "internal logic". It can't be inferred because we don't know what their plan is... ― Thailog 00:07, April 6, 2013 (UTC) ::::Cari, the very act of shaking hands with Darkseid and telling him it's business as usual does seem to indicate they both have some deals going on. thus it is specific and not generic. And as Thailog said, we don't know what they're working towards, based on what we've seen so far, so no inferences can be made. It's probably not a good comparison to our (sadly unconfirmed) assumptions about Happy Harbor still being destroyed. 'ᴥ' Zergrinch 00:27, April 6, 2013 (UTC) :::::I understand what you're saying, Zergrinch. But the definition of the word "infer", from what I've found online, is to "deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements." So in that definition, to infer what they're planning doesn't mean that you have to be 100% sure about what they're planning. And in that case, the answers to any question on this wiki can be inferred. Plus, the "Darkseid" question isn't really neutral, since the premise of that question has been contested (as you surely know) by some users. Cari1994 (talk) 00:41, April 6, 2013 (UTC) ::::::That made no sense whatsoever. We infer that they have a plan, but what it is cannot be inferred, and that's what is being asked. The "Darkseid question" being contested by "users" is completely irrelevant to the matter and by no means challenges its neutrality. It only shows a poor understanding of the policy. ― Thailog 00:53, April 6, 2013 (UTC) :::::::How can the answer to the "Darkseid" question not be inferred if there are multiple plot points throughout the series that can serve as evidence that one can use along with their reasoning to make an inference about his and the Light's plan? And you cannot count anything as irrelevant if you're trying to make an argument. The question relies on the premise that Darkseid and the Light are planning something, which has been contested by other users (specifically LoveWaffle), and thus the question is taking a side in a debate and therefore, it is not neutral. Cari1994 (talk) 01:06, April 6, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::There are no "plot points throughout the series that can serve as evidence" to infer what the Light and Darkseid are planning. We can infer what the goal of the Light is: to elevate mankind into the rulers of the cosmos, but we certainly can't infer how they're going to do it. ::::::::I can count any argument that is irrelevant as irrelevant, especially because by being irrelevant that argument bears not pertinence to the discussion at hands. I don't care if LoveWaffle or Zerg or Tukpa contested that question. We are discussing the question about the Reach apocalypse. And a neural question is a one that is unbiased and doesn't appear to lead the reader, so I don't get how LoveWaffle or whatever contesting it makes it any less neutral. Regardless, you're not going to sustain the validity of the Reach apocalypse question by comparing it to others, which, by the way, is something you do every time a question is challenged. ::::::::I'm quite tired of these discussions. I'm not going to repeatedly justify every question that you disagree with when you clearly do not understand the questions policy. Understand it or stay away from question sections. ― Thailog 01:33, April 6, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::1. The fact that the Darkseid question has been contested is perfectly relevant to our discussion because it supports my point that if you're going to take out the Bloodlines question, you might as well take out the Darkseid question too because it has the same problems. 2. There are plenty of plot points that act as clues as to what they are planning. Check out "Bereft", "Disordered", "Image", "Usual Suspects", "Auld Acquaintance", and every episode with Godfrey in it. They don't give the exact plan, but you can infer some details about the plan out of them. 3. The fact that the Darkseid question is based on a premise that has been contested by some users shows that it is biased, so it's not a neutral question. With all of this being said, I'm quite sure that I understand the questions policy quite well. Cari1994 (talk) 02:01, April 6, 2013 (UTC) Then what is the plan? Inferences as you're seeing them aren't even particularly relevant to the discussion. The discussion is what makes the question immune to automatic shut down by the policies? *1. It's a question which isn't derived whatsoever from Endgame's plot. *2. It's not open ended. It leads to a particular viewpoint. The amendment to the Darkseid Question I gave to Bantha corrects That for it with the primary issue Lovewaffle had with that debate. His problem was that there wasn't necessarily anything implied to happen AFTER that. He had no problem with that the business/plan, had been going on. *4 And 5: The destruction, from what we saw, can be inferred to be from Darkest. To presume that there May have been more is conjecture, or at best, too generic. Policy is against it. There's nothing that can be done against that. People who outright make edits against policy are blocked. [[User talk:Regulus22|'Regulus'22]] 02:18, April 6, 2013 (UTC)